- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:10:26 +0000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <20151222094155.GC8245@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: >On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 05:18:39PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> As discussed earlier <http://www.w3.org/mid/FAF2C2E8-0A6A-4C34-B4C4-57190AAE118D@mnot.net>, we are going to use a Call for Adoption process to assure that what we specify in terms of changes to Cookies -- if anything -- will actually get implemented. >> >> Based on what we've talked about so far, I believe two specifications are ready for consideration: >> >> * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-leave-secure-cookies-alone-04 >> * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-cookie-prefixes-05 >> >> So, please discuss on-list: >> >> 1) Your intent to implement these specifications (or lack thereof). >> 2) Your support for these specifications (or lack thereof). I came to the same conclusion as Willy, there is no proxy involvement for these drafts, so I'll cast a blank vote. But I won't miss the chance to point out, that the reason these are problems that needs fix^H^H^Hbanda^H^H^H^H^Hkludges in the first place is that cookies are simply the wrong way to keep state. State should be kept server-side where it belongs, indexed by a client chosen nonce acting as session-identifier. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 10:10:54 UTC